[Bug 1485296] New: Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates, originally from aeson.
5:20 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Bug ID: 1485296
Summary: Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of
ISO 8601 dates, originally from aeson.
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/git-annex/ghc-attoparsec-iso8601.spec
SRPM URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/git-annex/ghc-attoparsec-iso8601-1.0.0.0...
Description: Parsing of ISO 8601 dates, originally from aeson.
Fedora Account System Username: qulogic
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21460304
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:01 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
µSPEC looks good, but I'm hitting bug #1467299 when trying to fedora-review it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:26 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Package is good, accepted.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/ghc-attoparsec-iso8601/review-ghc-attoparsec-iso8601/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 15 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-attoparsec-iso8601-1.0.0.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601-devel-1.0.0.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601-1.0.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) aeson -> arson,
meson, Aesop
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aeson ->
arson, meson, Aesop
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) aeson -> arson,
meson, Aesop
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aeson ->
arson, meson, Aesop
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3:35 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-attoparsec-iso8601
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
11:56 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
--- Comment #4 from mprahl(a)redhat.com <mprahl(a)redhat.com> ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-attoparsec-iso8601
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
11:58 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
mprahl(a)redhat.com <mprahl(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mprahl(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from mprahl(a)redhat.com <mprahl(a)redhat.com> ---
Please disregard my comment from above. I was just testing in staging.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
7:34 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1486508
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486508
[Bug 1486508] Review Request: ghc-aeson-compat - Compatibility layer for
aeson
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:52 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601-1.0.0.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-20ca2726ff
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
12:15 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1487901
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487901
[Bug 1487901] Review Request: ghc-persistent - Type-safe, multi-backend
data serialization
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3:19 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1488608
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1488608
[Bug 1488608] Review Request: ghc-persistent-sqlite - Backend for the
persistent library using sqlite3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3:31 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1488614
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1488614
[Bug 1488614] Review Request: ghc-persistent-template - Type-safe,
non-relational, multi-backend persistence
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3:38 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1488612
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1488612
[Bug 1488612] Review Request: ghc-esqueleto - Type-safe EDSL for SQL
queries on persistent backends
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:49 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1485296] Review Request:
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601 - Parsing of ISO 8601 dates,
originally from aeson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485296
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2017-09-09 19:49:19
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ghc-attoparsec-iso8601-1.0.0.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
2479
days inactive
2494
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
12 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com